ÿWPC % …UBV %˜U .žÌnXÜ 0 P4 4„ 0”˜ 0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â 0H 1uØ U,M 0dy BÝU,úU 6& D3\B)DC¸ 0@û AM;aˆ–é¶â5ö´v~ªvÓ( AOû"ÆJ# 0l$ 0D|$ D/À$ Bï$<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X$ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óc`…(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òJanuaryÏ12,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ŒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔAlthough€the€petitioner€was€actually€charged€by€a€presentment,€the€term€"indictment"€is€usedÏthroughout€the€record€of€this€matter€and€will€be€used€in€this€opinion.Ì ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔAlthough€the€petitioner's€notice€of€appeal€was€not€timely€filed,€the€State€has€made€noÏcomplaint€and€we€therefore€waive€the€timely€filing€of€the€notice€in€the€interest€of€justice.€€T.R.A.P.€4(a).Ì ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔThis€case€illustrates€the€wisdom€of€tracking€the€language€of€the€presentment€or€indictment€in€allÏsubsequent€repetitions,€oral€and€written,€of€the€charges€against€the€petitioner,€including€the€languageÏdescribing€any€resulting€convictions.Ì “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔAlthough€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€369€S.W.2d€537€(Tenn.€1963)€indicates€that€ðð€39„3„820(b)€applied€toÏthe€transfer€or€attempted€transfer€of€a€forged€instrument,€arguably€ðð€39„3„820(a)€was€the€applicableÏpenalty.€€This€subsection€provided€for€a€term€of€imprisonment€of€"not€less€than€two€(2)€years€nor€moreÏthan€fifteen€(15)€years."€€Thus,€it€is€possible€that€the€petitioner€could€have€been€sentenced€to€an€evenÏlonger€term.Ì ìÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€)ôÔÔ€ÔThe€judge€who€would€have€presided€over€the€petitioner's€trial€was€called€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€and€testified€that€he€would€not€have€granted€a€continuance€to€the€petitioner€solely€on€theÏground€of€the€impending€repeal€of€the€habitual€criminal€statute.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(D3u$¢¢Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€((X„d&ÓÑ#€((Xd#ÑÔ€)ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€gÊXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€./,;+'h|` 81 `€€Lßà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àOCTOBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òDEXEL€LYNN€PARTON,€à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.ÏNO.€03C01„9406„CR„00242ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCOUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏRICHARD€BAUMGARTNER,ÌSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Post„conviction)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òMARK€E.ÏSTEPHENSà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONÌó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌÌPAULA€R.€VOSSó óà àà àà àà àò òà àGEORGEÏP.€LINEBAUGHó óÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àCounselÏfor€the€State€Ì1209€Euclid€Ave.à àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€Pkwy.à àKnoxville,€TN€€€37921à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àANDREW€JACKSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Bldg.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€€37902Ìà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€was€indicted× ƒ0 ××  ×€in€1987€for€burglary;€grand€larceny;Ïreceiving€stolen€property;€concealing€stolen€property;€"offering€to€pass€and€transfer€.€.Ï.€€[a]€forged€.€.€.€check"€in€the€amount€of€three€hundred€twenty€dollars€($320);€andÏunder€the€habitual€criminal€statute.€€Pursuant€to€a€plea€bargain€agreement,€he€pledÏguilty€to€third„degree€burglary;€grand€larceny;€and€"attempt€to€transfer€of€[sic]€a€forgedÏinstrument€exceeding€$200€in€amount,€as€charged."€€The€State's€recommendedÏpunishment€for€these€offenses€was€the€maximum€sentence€for€each€conviction.€€TheÏcourt€accepted€the€State's€recommendation€and€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€tenÏyears€as€a€Range€II€aggravated€and€persistent€offender€for€each€of€the€offenses,€toÏrun€consecutively,€for€an€effective€sentence€of€thirty€years.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€subsequently€filed€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïalleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€lower€court€dismissed€this€petition€onÏJanuary€10,€1994,€after€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€petitioner€filed€his€notice€ofÍappeal€on€March€14,€1994.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Specifically,€he€complains€that€he€would€not€have€pledÏguilty€to€a€thirty€year€sentence€if€his€lawyer€hadÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓÓÌ1)€€advised€him€correctly€on€the€maximum€sentence€for€an€attempt€toÏpass€a€forged€instrument;ÌÌ2)€€urged€him€to€seek€a€continuance;€andÌÌ3)€€timely€communicated€with€the€district€attorney€during€plea€bargainÏnegotiations.ÌÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitioner's€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€"must€show€that€counsel'sÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ableness"€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚sel's€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àTo€satisfy€the€requirement€of€prejudice,€the€petitioner€must€demonstrateÏa€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€his€coun‚sel's€errors,€he€would€not€have€pledÏguilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59Ï(1985);€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€215€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àà àThe€indictment€issued€against€the€petitioner€concerning€the€forgedÏcheck€states€"the€said€Dexel€Lynn€Parton,€Alias,€was€thereby€unlawfully,€falsely,Ïfraudulently,€feloniously€and€knowingly€guilty€of€òòoffering€to€pass€and€transferóó€saidÏfalse,€fraudulent,€forged€and€counterfeit€check€.€.€.€with€the€intent€.€.€€to€injure€andÏdefraud€.€.€.€First€Tennessee€Bank"€(emphasis€added).€€This€language€tracked€theÏlanguage€contained€in€the€statute€making€the€transfer€of€forged€paper€a€criminalÏoffense:€€"Any€person€who€fraudulently€passes€or€transfers,€òòor€offers€to€pass€orÏtransferóó,€any€forged€paper,€knowing€it€to€be€forged,€with€intent€to€defraud€another,€isÏguilty€of€a€felony."€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„3„804€(1982)€(repealed€1989)€(emphasis€added).€€ÏThus,€it€is€clear€that€the€petitioner€was€indicted€for€the€offense€of€offering€to€pass€aÏforged€instrument.€€The€penalty€for€violating€this€statute€was€imprisonment€in€theÏpenitentiary€for€not€less€than€three€years€and€not€more€than€ten€years.€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„3„820(b)€(1982)€(repealed€1989);€ðð39„3„1104(a)€(1982)€(repealed€1989);€ðð€39„3„1103Í(1982)€(repealed€1989).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€369€S.W.2d€537€(Tenn.€1963).€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€contends€that,€notwithstanding€the€language€of€theÏindictment,€he€pled€guilty€to€and€was€convicted€of€an€òòattemptóó€to€pass€a€forgedÏinstrument,€which€should€have€been€considered€a€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„1„501Ï(1982)€(repealed€1989).€€This€statute€provided,€"[i]f€any€person€attempts€to€commitÏany€felony€.€.€.€where€the€punishment€is€not€otherwise€prescribed,€he€shall,€onÏconviction,€be€punished€by€imprisonment€in€the€penitentiary€not€exceeding€five€(5)Ïyears."€€òòId.óó€€The€petitioner€rests€his€argument€on€the€description€of€the€indictedÏcharge€contained€in€his€plea€and€judgment€forms:€€"Attempt€to€transfer€a€forgedÏinstrument€exceeding€$200."€€This€same€language€was€used€to€describe€theÏconvicted€offense€on€the€judgment€form.€€The€trial€court€also€used€this€language€inÏdescribing€the€indicted€charge€to€the€petitioner€at€his€sentencing€hearing.€€TheÏpetitioner€is€trying€to€change€the€nature€of€his€offense€based€on€this€vernacular€use€ofÏthe€term€"attempt"€in€place€of€the€statutory€term€"offer."× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€petitioner's€effort,Ïhowever,€fails.ÌÌà àà à€Although€the€statute€addressing€the€transfer€of€forged€paper€did€notÏuse€the€term€"attempt,"€it€is€clear€from€the€plain€meaning€of€the€term€"offer"€that€theÏstatute€Ìwas€aimed€at€unsuccessful€efforts€to€transfer€forged€paper,€that€is€"attempts"€toÏtransfer,€as€well€as€successful€efforts.€€Thus,€this€statute€incorporated€both€offenses€ofÏactually€passing€forged€paper€and€merely€trying€to€do€so.€€In€the€case€of€attempts€toÏpass€forged€instruments,€there€were€two€statutes€which€were€arguably€applicable:€Ïthe€specific€statute€titled€"transfer€of€forged€paper"€and€the€general€attempt€statuteÏtitled€"attempt€to€commit€felony."€€General€rules€of€statutory€construction€require€us€toÏgive€effect€to€the€specific€statute€in€preference€to€the€general€one.€€òòState€ex€rel.ÏCordova€Area€Residents€for€the€Env't€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€862€S.W.2d€525,€526„7Ï(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Moreover,€if€an€unconsummated€effort€to€pass€a€forged€checkÏwas€properly€cognizable€as€a€violation€of€Tennessee's€general€attempt€statute,€thenÏthe€language€"offer€to€pass€or€transfer"€contained€in€the€specific€statute€becomesÏsuperfluous.€€The€rules€of€statutory€construction€prohibit€this€result.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòLoftinÏv.€Langsdonóó,€813€S.W.2d€475,€479€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Therefore,€the€petitioner'sÏattempt€to€pass€or€transfer€a€forged€check€was€properly€considered€to€be€a€violationÏof€T.C.A.€ðð€39„3„804€and€not€a€violation€of€T.C.A.€ðð€39„1„501.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€petitioner's€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€for€failingÏto€advise€his€client€that€the€maximum€penalty€for€"attempting€to€transfer€a€forgedÏinstrument"€was€five€years.€€As€set€forth€above,€the€maximum€penalty€was€ten€years.× ƒ3 ××  ×€ÏThis€issue€is€without€merit.à àà àÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏbecause€he€did€not€timely€communicate€with€the€district€attorney€during€the€pleaÏbargain€negotiations,€resulting€in€an€increase€in€the€State's€offer€from€twenty„fiveÏyears€to€thirty€years.€€However,€both€the€petitioner's€trial€counsel€and€the€prosecutingÏdistrict€attorney€testified€that€they€had€no€recollection€of€any€offer€of€under€thirty€years.€ÏThe€only€proof€of€an€offer€of€less€than€thirty€years€was€testimony€by€the€petitioner.€ÏMoreover,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€initially€rejected€the€alleged€twenty„fiveÏyear€offer,€and€that€the€offer€had€been€increased€to€thirty€years€because€the€districtÏattorney€was€angry€that€the€earlier€offer€had€been€rejected.€€Thus,€even€if€a€twenty„five€year€offer€had€been€outstanding€at€one€time,€the€petitioner€himself€rejected€it.€ÏThere€is€no€proof€in€the€record€that€any€subsequent€increase€in€the€offered€sentenceÍwas€the€result€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€petitioner€complains€that€his€trial€counsel€did€not€disclose€toÏhim€"the€actual€probability€for€a€continuance,"€meaning€that€his€counsel€privatelyÏconsidered€the€actual€probability€of€obtaining€a€continuance€on€the€grounds€that€theÏhabitual€criminal€statute€would€soon€be€repealed€to€be€very€great.€The€petitioner'sÏcase€was€set€for€trial€two€months€before€the€habitual€criminal€statute€was€to€beÏrepealed.€€The€petitioner€claims€that,€had€his€lawyer€told€him€that€there€was€a€goodÏchance€of€getting€a€continuance€such€that€the€statute€would€no€longer€be€applicable,Ïhe€would€not€have€pled€guilty.€€€Ìà àÌà àà àThis€Court€should€not€second„guess€trial€counsel's€tactical€andÏstrategic€choices€unless€those€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÏpreparation,€òò€Hellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982),€and€counsel€should€notÏbe€deemed€to€have€been€ineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€orÏstrategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276,Ï280€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Moreover,€there€is€no€doubt€in€this€Court's€mind€thatÏhad€the€petitioner's€lawyer€assured€him€that€a€continuance€would€have€been€grantedÍand€then€failed€to€obtain€one× ƒ4 ××  ×€with€the€result€that€the€petitioner€had€been€sentencedÏto€life€under€the€habitual€criminal€statute,€the€petitioner€would€now€be€complainingÏthat€his€counsel€had€been€ineffective€for€the€very€reason€that€he€òòhadóó€recommendedÏmoving€for€a€continuance.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€having€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€proving€that€his€trialÏcounsel's€performance€fell€below€the€appropriate€standard€and€that€his€performanceÏprejudiced€the€petitioner,€the€lower€court's€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓƒà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌ